Real World Event Discussions
TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 30 of 170
Sunday, July 24, 2016 6:25 PM
Quote:Trump can say anything his audience wants and they don't care if it is true or not. They want promises of violence: water boarding, killing Hillary, bombing Arabs. That is their Trump representing their inner passions.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1022ES
Trump pulls nearly even with Clinton after Republican convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
If only it wasn't for those damn voters, looking for a candidate who at least says they'll represent them, Hillary could get her uncontested coronation! Right second?
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Your mention of "uncontested coronation" is not happening. Johnson is predicted to get 8%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Does Rudy Giuliani strike you as an extremist? Or can he be reasoned with?
There have been many occasions in many countries when the voters got what they wanted, but it didn't turnout as well as the voting majority imagined.
Do you remember the American Civil War? Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated, but South Carolinians could not tolerate Lincoln's election. They had demonized him with their talk of "He will take away our private property! He will destroy the very social fabric holding society together!" South Carolinians did not imagine their inner passions would cause so much damage in their state. If only Lincoln had just minded his own business and stayed in Illinois and left the reasonable and serene people of S Carolina to live life as they have always known it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Outbreak_of_the_war
From the safety of 166 years later, I think we know South Carolinians were extremists. Perhaps in your state there is no doubt who started the Civil War and who was in the wrong, but not in Texas where Republicans see merit in the arguments of both sides of the Civil War.
Today's Republicans are especially concerned about the sanctity of their property. Did you know that slaves were property where Southerners stored their wealth? Kind of like owning real estate and government bonds today.
Today's Republicans are also very concerned about blacks, Mexicans, and Arabs running free and killing police and nightclub customers. In 1860 the concern was about Lincoln's freed slaves killing plantation owners and white women.
What’s happening to this country has happened before, in other nations, in other anxious, violent times when all the old certainties peeled away and maniacs took the wheel. It’s what happens when [Trump's] weaponised insincerity is applied to [Republicans'] structured ignorance. Donald Trump is the Gordon Gekko of the attention economy, but even he is no longer in control. This culture war is being run in bad faith by bad actors who are running way off-script, and it’s barely begun, and there are going to be a lot of refugees.
https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6
e0b2932#.f7xbs9upp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 24, 2016 6:37 PM
Quote:I can see you are under the impression that a properly run country owes everyone a job. Trump knows that about you and your kind. His campaign sales puffery is about him bringing jobs to America by the force of his personality.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The labor participation rate has dropped under Obama, from 65.7 percent in 2009 to 62.7 percent, but experts say just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Economists estimate that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25-54)."
Wait, am I to understand that if I retire because I can't find work, or if I'm between 55 and 65 and can't find a job, and I leave the labor force, I don't count? Especially when it's older workers who will have the most difficulties finding new work? It's crap like this that has people so disgusted with the same-old-same-old, second. It's being discounted and ignored by officialdom that people resent.
Actual politicians have difficulty convincing taxpayers and voters that it is worth spending their money to create jobs for losers (of jobs). Hillary talks about spending trillions on infrastructure. That would create millions of jobs in great outdoors, but Hillary will have an impossible task of getting even $275 billion from a Republican controlled congress.
www.nationalreview.com/corner/421239/what-hillary-clinton-gets-wrong-a
bout-infrastructure-reihan-salam
The Federal government never has felt that it was the employer of last resort, except when FDR was President. Not oddly, FDR was a Democrat. At that time the Republicans were utterly opposed to the Work Projects Administration. Not oddly, the Republican party hasn’t changed much since 1936 as far as creating jobs by building within the USA. There is another way to create jobs, but it requires war.
WWII over revved the economy, which Republicans completely approved of once they saw the benefits. Many fortunes were made from war spending and are still being made. That is second way of creating jobs – by destroying cities.
I’m not certain Americans want more spending on war to create jobs. Check the news, but I don’t think that changed.
I am not certain that millions of Americans want to work at government paid infrastructure jobs because it is outdoors in the heat and cold. Americans want to work in air-conditioned rooms.
I am absolutely certain Americans don’t want the government to just give money to the unemployed.
Americans hate the unemployed for weird reasons. The hateful majority of Americans limits what a truthful politician can promise to do for the unemployed. An untruthful politician can promise anything, ANYTHING, even to make America great again without spending any taxpayers’ money to do it.
Then there are Trump's tariffs to create jobs. Eventually citizens would see it for what it really is, just another way to tax them indirectly. Mr Untruthful Trump doesn’t talk about who is paying for his tariff schemes. He is assuming that tariffs won’t need to be paid because just announcing a tariff is more than enough to create millions of American factory jobs. Trump would be wrong about that.
Over the next decade, nearly 3.5 million manufacturing jobs will likely be needed, and 2 million are expected to go unfilled due to the skills gap. 80 percent of manufacturers report a moderate or serious shortage of qualified applicants for skilled and highly skilled production positions says the National Assoc. of Manuf. That limits how many jobs can be created, unless the Fed government pays to educate factory workers despite the objections of the Republicans about wasting taxpayers’ money on education.
www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 24, 2016 6:48 PM
Quote:Or you could vote in the Primary election for anyone but Boxer and Feinstein. Or put hundreds of bumper stickers on cars parked in shopping malls protesting Boxer and Feinstein. Or be Zoe and shoot to wound Boxer and Feinstein. Or Jayne and shoot to kill. You did watch Firefly, didn't you? Were you horrified by the violence and calmed yourself by saying it's only TV, it's only TV?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If you don't like Feinstein and Boxer, do California a favor and vote against them in the primary. That won't work? Not quick or practical enough for you? The Democrats will run different candidates if Feinstein and Boxer become Gabrielle Giffords."
You completely misunderstood my post, second. What I was pointing out is that here in California, Signy can vote her conscience - or at least vote to send a message.
But your misunderstanding is illuminating. I can see you're an unhinged fanatic for the cause. Because people freely exercising their free vote - as a way to note their disgust with the democrats who sold them out ages ago - and to put pressure on democrats to change - is, according to you, just one step behind attempted assassination.
It's your choice of how to protest against the democrats. But voting for Trump is not a protest against the Democratic Party. It is supporting Republicans. Voting for Green Party is not a protest against Democrats. It is the same as not voting.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:17 PM
Quote:
But your misunderstanding is illuminating. I can see you're an unhinged fanatic for the cause. Because people freely exercising their free vote - as a way to note their disgust with the democrats who sold them out ages ago - and to put pressure on democrats to change - is, according to you, just one step behind attempted assassination.- KIKI
Or you could vote in the Primary election for anyone but Boxer and Feinstein. [
Or put hundreds of bumper stickers on cars parked in shopping malls protesting Boxer and Feinstein.
Or be Zoe and shoot to wound Boxer and Feinstein.
Or Jayne and shoot to kill. You did watch Firefly, didn't you? Were you horrified by the violence and calmed yourself by saying it's only TV, it's only TV?
It's your choice of how to protest against the democrats. But voting for Trump is not a protest against the Democratic Party. It is supporting Republicans.
Voting for Green Party is not a protest against Democrats. It is the same as not voting.
SECOND, you've become totally unhinged. I hope you realize that. You're telling me that the ONLY "legitimate" choice is to vote "Democrat" in general elections?
But, yanno, the only real way to get Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) to change is the real fear of not getting into office. The BEST protest is the one that puts real pressure on the political parties. And that is the one legal power we are given, as citizens, to express our legitimate desires for change. And as far as you're concerned, that is the one thing that any right-minded citizen shouldn't do.
Your fanaticism has been duly noted.
By the way, you keep asking if I really think Trump will do this or that, and my answer is "no". I have said, more than once, that he's a loose cannon. A VERY loose cannon. But I'm so disgusted by "more of the same" in terms of jobs and warfare and finance - which has led us to where we are today, and will lead us to even more dire situations in the future- that I'll vote for anyone who promises to be NOT "more of the same". Judging by the number of people who hate Trump, he's definitely not "more of the same".
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:12 PM
Quote:What does that have to do with anything, second? Hillary's main opposition isn't coming from Gary, it's coming from Donald. Meanwhile, Hillary is not supposed to be in this position, one of facing a very concerning challenge. How did that happen, second? What did the DNC and Hillary do wrong? What is Donald doing right? But you can't answer those questions second, because it would involve two things not in your thinking - that Hillary is doing something wrong, and that Donald is doing something right. Until you can get beyond your limited thinking, your only answer to reality is to pretend that no Donald supporter has a legitimate grievance that Donald addresses, and that no Hillary protester has a legitimate criticism of her.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Trump can say anything his audience wants and they don't care if it is true or not. They want promises of violence: water boarding, killing Hillary, bombing Arabs. That is their Trump representing their inner passions.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1022ES
Trump pulls nearly even with Clinton after Republican convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
If only it wasn't for those damn voters, looking for a candidate who at least says they'll represent them, Hillary could get her uncontested coronation! Right second?
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Your mention of "uncontested coronation" is not happening. Johnson is predicted to get 8%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Quote:And what does Giuliani have to do with any kind of point you may be trying to make, second? I know you're desperate to put Donald in a bad light, but this video of Rudy isn't about Donald, it's about Rudy - and only Rudy.
Does Rudy Giuliani strike you as an extremist? Or can he be reasoned with?
Quote:And many of the people who voted for Brexit were equally surprised and unsettled to find it had passed. But nothing has said at this point that it'll end up badly. No, we have to go into the future doing the best we can with what we know.
There have been many occasions in many countries when the voters got what they wanted, but it didn't turnout as well as the voting majority imagined.
Do you remember the American Civil War? Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated, but South Carolinians could not tolerate Lincoln's election. They had demonized him with their talk of "He will take away our private property! He will destroy the very social fabric holding society together!" South Carolinians did not imagine their inner passions would cause so much damage in their state. If only Lincoln had just minded his own business and stayed in Illinois and left the reasonable and serene people of S Carolina to live life as they have always known it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Outbreak_of_the_war
From the safety of 166 years later, I think we know South Carolinians were extremists. Perhaps in your state there is no doubt who started the Civil War and who was in the wrong, but not in Texas where Republicans see merit in the arguments of both sides of the Civil War.
Quote:So republicans concerned about the sanctity of their property are just like slave owners? Is that your point, second? You're getting hard to unscramble.
Today's Republicans are especially concerned about the sanctity of their property. Did you know that slaves were property where Southerners stored their wealth? Kind of like owning real estate and government bonds today.
Quote:Are you thinking that I support Donald when I've already said I don't? Are you expecting me to defend everything he says when I've already
Today's Republicans are also very concerned about blacks, Mexicans, and Arabs running free and killing police and nightclub customers. In 1860 the concern was about Lincoln's freed slaves killing plantation owners and white women.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 24, 2016 11:41 PM
Quote:Where do I say that a properly run country owes everybody a job, second? Is that strawman argument the best you have to offer, second? Because strawman arguments are not only dishonest no matter where they're made, in this context yours is borderline crazy. So I'm not going to repeat myself that the 'let them eat cake' presentation in support of Hillary is dishonest, infuriating to those who've been so casually dismissed, and also destructive to Hillary (if you care about that). And I'm not going to make the case that historically, that attitude hasn't played well with the aggrieved masses. Nor am I going to point out that in a democracy, theoretically the people run the government which in turn helps run the society, and that if people aren't in society for mutual benefit there's no point in that society at all. And finally, I'm not going to repeat myself for the nth time that Hillary doing something as simple and common sense as disavowing those 'free' trade agreements could reassure a lot of people that she's prepared to at least not make their situation worse, even if she can't make it better,
Originally posted by second:Quote:I can see you are under the impression that a properly run country owes everyone a job. Trump knows that about you and your kind. His campaign sales puffery is about him bringing jobs to America by the force of his personality.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The labor participation rate has dropped under Obama, from 65.7 percent in 2009 to 62.7 percent, but experts say just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Economists estimate that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25-54)."
Wait, am I to understand that if I retire because I can't find work, or if I'm between 55 and 65 and can't find a job, and I leave the labor force, I don't count? Especially when it's older workers who will have the most difficulties finding new work? It's crap like this that has people so disgusted with the same-old-same-old, second. It's being discounted and ignored by officialdom that people resent.
No, I'm not going to make all those sane, common sense arguments about what Donald is doing right that Hillary could emulate.
Quote:
Actual politicians have difficulty convincing taxpayers and voters that it is worth spending their money to create jobs for losers (of jobs). Hillary talks about spending trillions on infrastructure. That would create millions of jobs in great outdoors, but Hillary will have an impossible task of getting even $275 billion from a Republican controlled congress.
www.nationalreview.com/corner/421239/what-hillary-clinton-gets-wrong-a
bout-infrastructure-reihan-salam
And once again, you seem to think that the only option for creating jobs is massive public spending, and ignore the one simple, common sense thing Hillary could do - which didn't make it into the platform - which is to disavow those 'free' trade agreements. Why is that, second? And why can't you admit that Hillary has genuine, workable, choices in front of her, that could garner her a lot of support from the disenfranchised, choices that are both humane and common sense, choices that should be no-brainers - and that she and the DNC refuse to consider?
So, btw, I just want to make my point again that the only concessions Bernie's people were able to get in the platform were the ones that will never, ever, come to pass. Where the DNC really stuck to their guns, and stuck it to the people, was on 'free' trade agreements, and war-hawk foreign policy. GO DEMS!!!
Quote:
The Federal government never has felt that it was the employer of last resort, except when FDR was President. Not oddly, FDR was a Democrat. At that time the Republicans were utterly opposed to the Work Projects Administration. Not oddly, the RepuNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, July 25, 2016 9:25 PM
Quote:Being a liar works for Trump, so it must be right, 1kiki? You'll respond with everybody lies, including Hillary! You really need to do a comparison and Trump is far ahead of Hillary or Bernie.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hillary is not supposed to be in this position, one of facing a very concerning challenge. How did that happen, second? What did the DNC and Hillary do wrong? What is Donald doing right?
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Bernie is our reference point. All truths are measured from where Bernie stands.
www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
Bernie is 52%, Hillary is 51% true or mostly true. Trump is 11%. Good strategy for Trump!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, July 25, 2016 9:31 PM
Quote:You might want to explain this away, 1kiki. Your best gambit is to say Putin denies it; Hillary is a liar; there is no connection between a Russian autocrat and Republican autocrat running for President.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You need a tag line, second. Since you're a globalist-Hillary supporter, I suggest 'let them eat cake' or perhaps '“Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.'
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/are-donald-trump-and-vladimir-p
utin-really-bffs
Today brings one of the weirdest stories of any recent presidential campaign: Hillary Clinton's campaign has essentially accused Donald Trump of being a pawn of the Russians. Not in hints; not from an unaffiliated Super PAC; not in a deniable statement from an arms-length surrogate; and not in vague "doesn't put America first" terms. Friday's release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, says Clinton's campaign manager, "was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." And Trump intervened to change the Republican platform last week in a way that "some experts would regard as pro-Russian."
Believe it or not, though, that's not the weirdest part of this story. The weirdest part is (a) Clinton's campaign might be right, and (b) this is not really getting an awful lot of attention from the media.
Let that sink in: the Clinton campaign has explicitly accused the Russians of being on Team Trump and suggested that Trump might be on Team Russia. And although the media is covering it, it's not the top story anywhere. Seriously. WTF does it take these days to lead the news?
In a nutshell, here's the evidence. A few months ago, when the DNC's email was hacked, outside experts immediately said it looked like it had been done by the Russians. Here's the New York Times:
Researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were the same attackers behind previous Russian cyberoperations at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year....Evidence so far suggests that the attack was the work of at least two separate agencies, each apparently working without the knowledge that the other was inside the Democrats’ computers.
....The experts cited by Mr. Mook include CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm that was brought into the Democratic National Committee when officials there suspected they had been hacked....Officials at several other firms that have examined the code for the malware used against the Democratic National Committee and the metadata of the stolen documents found evidence that the documents had been accessed by multiple computers, some with Russian language settings.
Eventually the email cache ended up in the hands of Wikileaks, which published it on Friday. "The release to WikiLeaks adds another strange element," says the Times, "because it suggests that the intelligence findings are being 'weaponized' — used to influence the election in some way." Other similar stories include this one from the Washington Post and this one from Defense One. Beyond that, Russian media has become conspicuously pro Trump over the past year.
So that's the evidence that Russia is backing Team Trump. But what about the evidence that Trump is on Team Russia? This is a little trickier, but it turns out Trump has an impressive number of pro-Russian views:
The Washington Post: Trump didn't bother much with the Republican platform, but on one topic he pulled out the heavy artillery: against the advice of virtually all conservative foreign policy analysts, he insisted on gutting a plank that said the US should provide weapons to Ukraine. Also: for many years, Trump's campaign chair, Paul Manafort, was a lobbyist for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Putin former president of Ukraine.
The New York Times: A few days ago, Trump told David Sang
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, July 25, 2016 10:14 PM
Quote:I was wondering which is more likely? 1kiki is knowledgeable and is sharing that wisdom? Or does 1kiki understand only 1kiki’s mind? I have decided that 1kiki is full of bullshit.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And once again, you seem to think that the only option for creating jobs is massive public spending, and ignore the one simple, common sense thing Hillary could do - which didn't make it into the platform - which is to disavow those 'free' trade agreements. Why is that, second? And why can't you admit that Hillary has genuine, workable, choices in front of her, that could garner her a lot of support from the disenfranchised, choices that are both humane and common sense, choices that should be no-brainers - and that she and the DNC refuse to consider?
So, btw, I just want to make my point again that the only concessions Bernie's people were able to get in the platform were the ones that will never, ever, come to pass. Where the DNC really stuck to their guns, and stuck it to the people, was on 'free' trade agreements, and war-hawk foreign policy. GO DEMS!!!
It was so easy to come to that conclusion by googling ‘will increasing tariffs increase manufacturing jobs?’
www.quora.com/How-could-a-tariff-on-US-businesses-actually-prevent-out
sourcing-bring-jobs-back-to-America-and-raise-wages-for-domestic-workers
www.quora.com/Would-imposing-tariffs-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back-to-
the-US
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME